Please don't get me wrong, I detest guns. I think they are necessary for subsistence hunters and law enforcement/soldiers, but really, that's about it. I'm sure any cop worth his salt doesn't simply allow someone to get the jump on him, and a cop's presence may have altered the outcome, but anyone truly off their gourd enough to kill 20 little kids doesn't really fall into predictable behavioral models without knowing a lot of intimate details.

Gun control reform is necessary, but it is not the only cause of something like this and pointing to a specific tragedy which is far outside the norm to demand specific changes is just silly.

THIS isn't the reason to reform gun control laws, the millions of lives lost every year to all to common street crimes are. THIS isn't the reason for cops in schools, this is such a rare event that we can't even say ANY school security measures has ever prevented something like this, but having cops in schools reduces gang activity, drug activity, even truancy.

Using something like this aas evidence for action is akin to saying, "Over the last three decades 10-15 people had allergic reactions to pine so all pines should be eliminated in areas of human habitation." Looking at the big picture, shoring up the holes in our communities that people fall through into poverty, suffering, and mental illness, looking at gun laws with logic, and examining data, not dramatic speeches about the Revolution or dead children, and generally treating each other as members of the same species, not as neighboring tribes trying to snatch my cookies, will bring change across all parts of the problem.

(15-12-2012 04:44 PM)cufflink Wrote: Nick Kristof in today's New York Times offered what seems to me a realistic and balanced proposal for gun reform in the U.S. His basic question is, "Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?"

The second half of his article--what we can actually do--is here:

Nicholas Kristof Wrote:So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.

We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun. . . .

Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.

Limit magazine capacity so that the average person has yet another disadvantage while criminals dont?

No, other countries dont offer a roadmap when you use biased numbers.

Guns that imprint a serial # on each casing? Now you can be framed for crimes bc someone collects your brass, reloads it and uses? it. Sounds like a great idea, surely thought up by a veteran firearms engineer and not a knee jerk politician.

All of those car safety measures are to protect the user mostly from themselves, where as guns are really easy to be safe with, follow the golden 4 and you will never hurt yourself or others thru negligence.

(15-12-2012 06:31 PM)Impulse Wrote:

(14-12-2012 09:59 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Seriously want to defend yourself with a single shot weapon? When you might miss, or the assailant might keep coming? One bullet doesn't always stop an attacker, one bullet doesn't always kill the bear.

I don't care about hunting. In fact, I hate the so-called sport. But, for those who do like to hunt, what sport is it if it's too easy? The single shot gun should do just fine and should make it more of a sport. What do you think people used to use before there were other guns, even when they had to hunt for food and survival?

As for defending myself, I have no problem with a single shot gun. If you can't aim or you don't know the effective spots to aim for, you shouldn't be using a gun in the first place.

You are soo blatantly ignorant on the subject of hunting and home defense with a firearm that Im wondering why you wasted the time commenting??

I travel to Asia and Europe about 180 days a year and I feel safer there than in my own country. Don't get me wrong, I love America, but we are a violent culture. What is it that other developed countries do to make it so safe? We could learn something from them.

(15-12-2012 06:31 PM)Impulse Wrote: I don't care about hunting. In fact, I hate the so-called sport. But, for those who do like to hunt, what sport is it if it's too easy? The single shot gun should do just fine and should make it more of a sport. What do you think people used to use before there were other guns, even when they had to hunt for food and survival?

As for defending myself, I have no problem with a single shot gun. If you can't aim or you don't know the effective spots to aim for, you shouldn't be using a gun in the first place.

You are soo blatantly ignorant on the subject of hunting and home defense with a firearm that Im wondering why you wasted the time commenting??

How so? What's laughable is I haven't even begun to comment on either subject, but you somehow think you know what I do or don't know; enough to say I'm "ignorant".

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.

Statistically speaking, people who own guns for "self-defense" are more likely to A) injure themselves with said gun and/or B) have the weapon taken by an intruder and used against them or in another crime.

Limiting access to equipment like 100 round magazines makes them more difficult to acquire, no one is under the delusion that it makes it impossible for bad people to get a hold of them. But the argument for maintaining such accessories for self-defense is stupid. That would be the equivalent of saying that bad people can also get access to nukes and tanks, so why not everyone?

Also, gun control is not the single issue that leads to such events, but our current laws did nothing to help prevent it. I have no interest in using such tragedies to further a political agenda, but I also have no interest in maintaining status quo.

(17-12-2012 11:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Statistically speaking, people who own guns for "self-defense" are more likely to A) injure themselves with said gun and/or B) have the weapon taken by an intruder and used against them or in another crime.

Limiting access to equipment like 100 round magazines makes them more difficult to acquire, no one is under the delusion that it makes it impossible for bad people to get a hold of them. But the argument for maintaining such accessories for self-defense is stupid. That would be the equivalent of saying that bad people can also get access to nukes and tanks, so why not everyone?

Also, gun control is not the single issue that leads to such events, but our current laws did nothing to help prevent it. I have no interest in using such tragedies to further a political agenda, but I also have no interest in maintaining status quo.

(17-12-2012 11:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Statistically speaking, people who own guns for "self-defense" are more likely to A) injure themselves with said gun and/or B) have the weapon taken by an intruder and used against them or in another crime.

Limiting access to equipment like 100 round magazines makes them more difficult to acquire, no one is under the delusion that it makes it impossible for bad people to get a hold of them. But the argument for maintaining such accessories for self-defense is stupid. That would be the equivalent of saying that bad people can also get access to nukes and tanks, so why not everyone?

Also, gun control is not the single issue that leads to such events, but our current laws did nothing to help prevent it. I have no interest in using such tragedies to further a political agenda, but I also have no interest in maintaining status quo.

No they are not, those "statistics" are bunk and spread by hoplophobes.

100r magazines like betamags are expensive and don't function correctly. Only idiots buy them when for 275$,you can buy a whole case of 30rounders.

I would love for you to explain how firearms are so ineffective in lawful people's against BG's, but so effective when the tables are turned.

Quote:And stop defending inanimate objects

but don't stop criminalizing them? GTFO.

I am glad you seem willing to have a reasonable discussion after telling me to "GTFO." Please explain to me how the statistics are bull? People with guns in their home are more likely to injure themselves and have them stolen than those who do not have guns in their home. It doesn't even matter what the numbers are in that argument, having them means you are more likely to incur injury.

Guns have done nothing to improve our crime rates in the slightest. Our crime rate is just as high, the only difference is we have people killing each other with guns and not knives. But guns are capable of more harm in a shorter period of time. They turn someone from a potential threat to a few people, into a potential threat for entire groups of people.

I am not criminalizing the guns. When have I ever said it was the guns fault? I have said repeatedly that access to these weapons and accessories by PEOPLE is an issue. It allows for people with bad intentions to exercise their insanity. I never said the guns cause it and I never said they wouldn't do something stupid without them.

1 year ago at the end of January, 2 events occurred within hours of one another. One great, one tragic. One the start of a new life, and one the end of a sad and lonely one. My son was born at 9:12pm on January 25th. I cried. 12 hours later, my wife was the one crying. Her brother had committed suicide within hours of my son having been born. It appears he did so shortly after receiving a text message saying that the birth went well and gave the weight and length. He hung himself in his father's office, with his belt, so that his father would be the one to find him. To this day, my father-in-law maintains he did not leave a note, but no one believes him as he has lied about other details too. There is no doubt in my mind he killed himself that night so that every birthday my son celebrated, his family would be forced to think of him.

Why did I tell that story? Because here is someone who like so many other people in this country, felt neglected, backed into a corner, forgotten, and angry. So angry in fact, that he wanted to send one last "fuck you" message to his father. He did it in the only way he knew how, suicide. He did not have access to any weapons, and for that I am eternally grateful. Because I do not know what a heroin addict who had gone over the edge would have done to his father. Or to the children who now hold his fathers affection.

Other people do not fare so well. Sometimes people like this decide to send a message to be remembered by more than just their family. They have access to weapons they should not. They do things no one on the pro-gun side intends, but they do so none the less. And still the pro-gun side advocates the message of "you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands." You know what? I hope I do not, but I also hope that no one else's hands grow cold while you wrap yours around that cold, lifeless steel.

Benghazi happens and the Right goes nuts demanding something be done. Newtown happens and they stay eerily quite, clutching their guns and whispering "not over my dead body." But those kids? They are just causalities of narcissism, self-interest, and greed.

I don't want to out and out ban guns. I have never said that. I want improvement because this status quo, has to stop.

The same reason they are so effective for criminals is the same reason I own them for protection.

So your argument is that the statistics (cold hard numbers) are bullshit so you won't believe them?

You prefer emotion to make your arguments?

Did you read any thing else? And we aren't talking about "cooked" statistics either. This is not a statistical analysis looking for a p-value to reject a claim or doing a fast fourier transform to find a pattern or a principal component analysis to try and connect 2 things. This is a and b are correlated. It is regression.